Spec: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes-0.1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Minitunes is just another music player, only better. Minitunes unclutters your music listening experience with a clean and innovative interface. Features: * Look them in the face. Browse your collection by artists pictures and album covers. * Powerful multimedia engine. Minitunes takes advantage of Quicktime on the Mac, GStreamer or Xine on Linux. * Browse folders and files. Minitunes lets you browse your music the way you organized it. * Playlists made simple. Minitunes has just a single playlist. It's always there on the right. ________________________________________________________________________________ Koji builds from scratch: F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325160 F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325165 F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2325168 ________________________________________________________________________________ $ rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS,RPMS/i686}/minitunes* SPECS/minitunes.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, splutters minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet minitunes.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install minitunes.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, splutters minitunes.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet minitunes.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/minitunes minitunes.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary minitunes 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Could you please get in touch with the author and find out what license does he really want to use for this program ? None of the source files includes a reference to the license, the web site mentions GPL, the "INSTALL" file mentions GPLv3+ and the tarball includes not only the GPLv3 but also the LGPL license file. But this last one is not referenced anywhere...
rpmlint opencc* opencc.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/opencc ['/usr/lib64'] opencc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/opencc_dict ['/usr/lib64'] opencc.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 opencc.x86_64: W: empty-%post opencc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation opencc-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Runtish opencc-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache opencc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 exit.5 opencc-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation opencc-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 opencc-libs.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libopencc.so.0.0.0 opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_HK/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo opencc-libs.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 12 warnings.
error in previous post, wrong project.
(In reply to comment #1) > Could you please get in touch with the author and find out what license does he > really want to use for this program ? None of the source files includes a > reference to the license, the web site mentions GPL, the "INSTALL" file > mentions GPLv3+ and the tarball includes not only the GPLv3 but also the LGPL > license file. But this last one is not referenced anywhere... OK, done! I have sent an email to the author of the program. Regards, German.
Here is the answer from the author of Minitunes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Germán, Thanks for your interest in Minitunes! Minitunes is GPL. The reason why a copy of the LGPL is included is that some files (some Qt utility classes) are LGPL. This was brought up when Ubuntu people were packaging Minitube, another app of mine. http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/minitube "all files with nokia copyright are not available under GPL3+ only (at least some of them are triple-licensed with commercial, lgpl or gpl) *) in consequence the package is missing a complete copy of the LGPL" Flavio -------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can review this tomorrow, so far I can tell you this: add rm -rf %{buildroot} to %install and fix the %description to not include unnecessary spaces: * Look them in the face. Browse your collection by artists pictures and album covers. * Powerful multimedia engine. Minitunes takes advantage of Quicktime on the Mac, GStreamer or Xine on Linux. * Browse folders and files. Minitunes lets you browse your music the way you organized it. * Playlists made simple. Minitunes has just a single playlist. It's always there on the right. rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/minitunes-* minitunes.src: I: checking minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, cluttered The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.src: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.src: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/files/minitunes/minitunes-0.1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.x86_64: I: checking minitunes.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, cluttered The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.x86_64: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary minitunes Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. minitunes-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking minitunes-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The spelling errors can be ignored, there are none. I'll do a full review tomorrow.
(In reply to comment #6) > I can review this tomorrow, so far I can tell you this: > > add > rm -rf %{buildroot} to %install > > and fix the %description to not include unnecessary spaces: > > > * Look them in the face. Browse your collection by artists pictures and album > covers. > * Powerful multimedia engine. Minitunes takes advantage of > Quicktime on the Mac, GStreamer or Xine on Linux. > * Browse folders and files. Minitunes lets you browse your music > the way you organized it. > * Playlists made simple. Minitunes has just a single playlist. > It's always there on the right. Thanks very much Manguns for your time! What do you mean by not including unnecessary spaces? Other suggestions I'll fix today.
I meant the spaces in front of the "*", the description looks a bit cluttered. If you look at yum info minitunes, I think you'll see what I meant. This is just my opinion, not a must.
(In reply to comment #8) > I meant the spaces in front of the "*", the description looks a bit cluttered. > If you look at yum info minitunes, I think you'll see what I meant. This is > just my opinion, not a must. OK, now I see your point :-) Please find updated files here: SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes-0.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm rpmlint output: Checking SPEC file ------------------ 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Checking SRPM file ------------------ minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, splutters minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Checking RPM file ----------------- minitunes.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, splutters minitunes.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet minitunes.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/minitunes minitunes.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary minitunes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Below is the full review: Minitunes Review ### * = not tested + = passed ? = See comment #### + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -iv /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/minitunes-*.rpm minitunes.src: I: checking minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, cluttered The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.src: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.src: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/files/minitunes/minitunes-0.1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.x86_64: I: checking minitunes.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unclutters -> uncluttered, clutters, cluttered The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlist -> play list, play-list, playlet The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. minitunes.x86_64: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) minitunes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary minitunes Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. minitunes-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking minitunes-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://flavio.tordini.org/minitunes (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Spelling errors are not errors and can be ignored along with no-manual-page-for-binary. + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. ? MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Add comment above License field to clarify, ex. # Minitunes is GPL. The reason why a copy of the LGPL is included is that # some files (some Qt utility classes) are LGPL. License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ + MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. upstream: 28124cda6482c304a2e5106206e010a9 src.rpm: 28124cda6482c304a2e5106206e010a9 matches. + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. tested x86_64 and i686 , fc13 + MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. + MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. + MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. + MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. + MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. + MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. + MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. + MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. + MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. + MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. + MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. + SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. + SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. + SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Looks pretty good to me, just clarify the License part and it is good to go.
(In reply to comment #10) > Below is the full review: > > Minitunes Review > [snip] > Looks pretty good to me, just clarify the License part and it is good to go. Many thanks for the full review Magnus! I've added the comment you suggested and also I've mailed the author suggesting to add a man page. Please find the updated files here: SPEC: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm
Approved!
Thank you very much Magnus! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: minitunes Short Description: A better music player Owners: skytux Branches: F-12 F-13 F-14 InitialCC:
I am terribly sorry for not noticing this earlier, but this package requires gstreamer-plugins-bad and/or xine-lib-extras-freeworld to be able to actually play any music. These packages exists in the rpmfusion.org repositories. I am afraid this is not suitable for inclusion in the fedora repositories. You can file a bug in the rpmfusion bugzilla instead and I will pick it up there.
Ehh, ignore my previous comment completely please, and do the cvs-request again. This is approved!
Hehehe...no problem Magnus! :-) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: minitunes Short Description: A better music player Owners: skytux Branches: F-12 F-13 F-14 InitialCC:
GIT done (by process-git-requests).
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc12
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc13
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update minitunes'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
minitunes-0.1.1-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.